Homosexual Rights & Constitutional Law - The Golden Rule Of Gays & Christians

With the increasing legal and popular acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in the United States, there has been an accompanying increase in confusion.

With all the cries for acceptance of their sexual preferences have come accusations of discrimination and intolerance toward those who supposedly will not readily accept their immoral stance.

So, in order to eliminate as much confusion as possible, let's clarify a few things.

First, it should be understood that the long standing meaning of the clear statements of the Bible against homosexual activity that have been held by Professing Christians of many denominations will be continued to be held by those same conservative Believers.

Second, what has been labeled as discrimination against homosexuals tends to be nothing more than a First Amendment exercise of sincere religious belief on the part of professing religious Believers.

If a homosexual couple enters my restaurant to eat, am I to deny them a meal? They would say "No!"

If, however, they ask me to cater an event that showcases their lifestyle, that is a different matter. My religious belief would not allow me to promote, benefit or further actions or conditions that I would consider morally wrong.

On the other hand, if I entered a restaurant owned by a homosexual, would I expect him do deny me a meal simply because I was a professing Christian? No. By serving a meal to me, this person would in no way be promoting, benefitting or furthering my religious life and/or beliefs.

Nor, on the other hand, would I expect this person to cater my event where my lifestyle, religious beliefs, which may be diametrically opposed to his or hers, will be the center of attention. Can I or should I be able to force this person to promote, benefit or further my religious beliefs, simply because I ask him to? Should I expect this person to violate his own beliefs? Should I be able to sue for discrimination? The obvious answer is no.

This is just one aspect of a multi-faceted and emotional issue. Addressing one aspect at a time can help alleviate confusing arguments as well as promote rational thought. 

Does this mean that everyone involved gets their way in every instance and circumstance? No, but ranting solves nothing and promotes misunderstanding as well as maintaining highly emotional exchanges.

That's why tolerance is an issue that really has two sides in the legal realm. It has a practical side that needs to be evident in the exercise of rights, as well as duties, according to the law.

A Woman's Body? A Little Extra Thought!

Sometimes, it takes a little extra thought!

God , Parents and the State - To Whom do the Children Belong?

As parents, we have a duty to know the Truth, then act in obedience for the benefit of the children God has placed into our care.

Jesus and Violence - Understanding the Law

I have found many Christians uncomfortable talking about Jesus throwing the money changers out of the Temple. It's a side of Jesus that proves tough to explain in light of the pacifist image portrayed most about the Son of God.

What Jesus was actually doing was protecting private property. His reference to "My Father's House" gives us the first indication of the basis of His actions. Under the Law a person could take actions to deal with situations on his own property. Being His Father's Son and legal, rightful heir, Jesus also had the right to protect His Father's interests.

When others intrude onto private property or into relationships in which they have no authority, those vested with the proper authority may lawfully respond. God has created life on this earth with certain bounds. When those bounds are violated, the person committing the trespass is subject to immediate action and, eventually judgment.

So, when you take action, especially when protecting or defending the interests of others, make sure you have the legal right and authority to do so. Jesus did!

Jesus always followed the Law!

God, Government & the Bible

In order to understand the US Constitution and American government, one must first understand the Bible. If you misunderstand what the Bible reveals about secular governments, then your political understanding will be at the mercy of those who interpret the Bible to fit their particular worldview instead of allowing the Bible to speak plainly.

Does the Traditional Christian worldview about Government agree with the Bible?

God's Gift of Children - Property????????

It must be remembered this quote of Benjamin Rush, Founding Father and Signer of the Declaration of Independence, "We should teach our pupils that they do not belong to themselves, but are public property."....................­....................If you think the idea that children are property of the State is new, think again. It's been in America for awhile.

The Evidence for Christian America - Is Ignorance Bliss?

If the presence of Christian words, phrases and symbols on, in and around government buildings are evidence of the Christian heritage of the United States, what is the presence of many more Pagan words, phrases, and symbols on, in and around those same buildings evidence of?

Are professing Christians ignoring evidence of the origins of America?

Obama & Tolerance in America - Is it Better to be a Homeschool Family or Gay

In the light of the recent national coming out of NBA veteran Jason Collins as a man who prefers sex with other men, its interesting to take note of the priorities of the President Obama and his administration.

President Obama was only too glad to make a personal call to Jason Collins to show official and personal support for his prominent revelations. And this call was made in the midst of national fanfare celebrating the announcement, American tolerance towards it and its substance.

The Romeike Family - Persecuted by the German Government for Homeschooling

On the other hand, the Obama administration has been responsible for the denial and argument against political asylum of the Romeike Family from Germany who came to the United State to seek political protection from the German Government's repeated intruding into and interrupting the raising and teaching of their children at home while not always conforming to the German society's view on social issues. The children have repeatedly been forcibly separated from their parents, housed with other families and the parents have been ordered to pay heavy fines for not conforming to government mandates. While initially being granted asylum, the Obama administration rescinded that status and has argued for their deportation to Germany saying that none of the Romeike's rights are being violated.

If you are unfamiliar with this Family and their plight, please read this information. More is available through an online search.

In the light of the Appeals Court denial of asylum, this article was written wondering if the Romeike's would have fared better if they had confessed to being a Gay couple.

So, it's more tolerable for a man to have sex with another man than it is for parents to be able to raise and train their children properly without undo government interference! Welcome to the Third Reich.

God, Marriage, Money & Starbucks Gay Coffee - For Homosexuals Only

I'm not known for getting involved with boycotts of companies that support causes or ideologies that I don't agree with. I consider them a waste of valuable resources better spent elsewhere. But this is different.

At the annual shareholders meeting of Starbucks, the CEO had some interesting financial advice for a shareholder who didn't agree with the corporate stance of Starbucks regarding Traditional Marriage. Please Click Here for the entire story as reported by Forbes and passed on by Joe Miller.

While I will not be officially supporting any attempted boycott of Starbucks by any organization, I will be willing to take the advice of the CEO of Starbucks and spend my coffee money elsewhere. After all, I wouldn't want to think that the buying public frequenting Starbucks might disagree with any philosophy Starbucks would officially endorse.

Take your Coffee Money elsewhere!

 And I definitely wouldn't want to offend their bottom line, knowing that part of it was earned providing a service and product to an unwanted customer, a Traditional Marriage supporter. God forbid!

The Constitution & The Bible - Religious Pluralism - An Inalienable Right From God??

Religious Pluralism - An Inalienable Right Given by God?

  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights....."

These words from the beginning of The Declaration of Independence are among the most well known and revered in all of history. While holding a special place in the hearts of people within many nations of the modern world, in no place are they held higher and closer than within the hearts of American Christians of most stripes.

I found out just how closely they are held and how highly thought of these words are yesterday in a conversation on Facebook. After being invited to the page of Ben Bush Sr, my Father by the way, I posted the following;

• "I've been asking this question for several years and have never received a response other than silence, even when the question was asked face to face. The question is this. ..........."If certain signs, symbols. words and phrases on government buildings and documents are to be considered legitimate evidence for the United States being a Christian Nation, what are the many more pagan signs, symbols, words and phrases on government buildings and documents to be taken as evidence of?"

The entire conversation can be accessed through the link in the above question.

The issue I want to point out regards Final Authority: Who or What is your Final Authority? This vital question has traditionally been answered by resorting to The Bible, self-identified as "The Word of God," as the final arbiter of beliefs and practice for all professing a relationship with God through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The above conversation, though, is a stark example of what takes place when the people of God attempt to interpret History, especially American History, without a prior acknowledgment of The Bible's statements about God, secular politics and the relationship of God's People to each one.

So, here's the rub. The Declaration espouses the particular tenet that all rights, inalienable rights specifically, come from God. That includes the Freedom of Religion, the right to worship God, to exercise their religion according to the dictates of a person's own heart, specified in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

It must be made clear that to believe this is not a problem. For this issue to be a matter of law is not a problem. The problem begins with the fact that God is identified as the origin of this right and approves of a person worshiping Him in any manner that person desires or chooses. The problem is consummated  by the fact that the Bible can never be the source for this supposed right originating from and being approved by God. In fact, the Bible reveals just the opposite.

Exodus 20:4-6

⁴ Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
⁵ Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
⁶ And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Soon after the giving of the Commandments to the children of Israel, they put YHWH's Word to the test when they became impatient from Moses' long stay on the mountain with YHWH. They took the matter of worship into their own hands and Aaron made the golden calf for their "feast unto the Lord". (Exodus 32:1-5)

The Golden Calf - Unapproved Worship of YHWH

When Moses returned, he was angry and asked the question, "Who is on the Lord's side?" Three thousand people died as a result of that disobedience as well as a plague being put on the people.

We can see that worship is a serious matter with God. In no way is the  manner of worship left to the thoughts of men. God specifically addresses all aspects so that nothing is left to conjecture. In fact, God specifically mentions the style and type of worship of the pagan nations surrounding them as being prohibited. Furthermore, God saw fit to put it in writing for the Nation of Israel and the rest of the World to know.

Even Jesus said that they that worship God must worship Him in spirit and truth. There is a right way and a wrong way.  

So, we can see that God in no way sanctions His Worship in any manner seen fit by man to choose. God has set the standards for men to approach Him in worship.

So, it can be seen that in worshiping the God of the Bible in truth, YHWH neither approves of nor agrees with the First Amendment Freedom of Religion according to the dictates of a man's heart. YHWH alone dictates how to worship Him.

For those who may be worried that the Founding Fathers of the United States were mistaken in their assertion that the inalienable rights of the Constitution, specified and unspecified, are given by God, the Bible does provide a certain amount of enlightenment. 

The Prophet Ezekiel tells us how YHWH deals with a people, a nation that despises His judgments and walks not in His Statutes. Chapter 20, verse 25 tells us that, "Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good and judgments whereby they should not live."

So, when the Bible is allowed to speak, it tells us that the inalienable right of Freedom of Religion as articulated in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is nothing more than the judgment of God upon this nation. It's given to a people that have rejected the Law of God in their lives. In this case, it is given by God as a law, an inalienable right, that is "not good" and  one whereby we should "not live." Contrary to the thoughts of many, it is not given as a blessing from God, nor is it to be taken as a positive. The only way this right can be declared, as the Founders articulated in the Declaration,  as one of the "Laws" of "Nature's God" is as the judgment of God.

God, Politics & Taxes - Viewing the IRS Through the Eyes of Jesus

Many remain unsure about Caesar & God.

In this age of using Jesus Christ as a poster child for the nearest available cause to trumpet to the world, it's easy to take the glib merger of the holy and profane. I'm sure many could say the same about the hot button issue of taxes.

Over the past three decades, many personalities have given their take about taxes, even using The Bible coupled with the IRS Code and other Law as their main source for authority. If you have any familiarity with this august group, you will know that most of them are now shining their light of truth while enclosed within the authority of United States Federal Prison Bars.

Irwin Schiff - Now in prison

Larken Rose - Now in prison

Kent Hovind - Now in prison

From Irwin Schiff to Larken Rose to Kent Hovind, particular issues have been researched, debated and argued in open court (local, state, federal, IRS, etc) as well as the most public of forums, the World Wide Web, all with losses of time, money and, ultimately, freedom.

Instead of rehashing these arguments from the legal realm, I prefer to take a look at the words and actions of Jesus as recorded in the Bible in Matthew, chapter 17. And also, instead of looking at his response to the Pharisees about "rendering unto Caesar," a look at his ultimate response when His Disciples were asked by the Tax Collector, "Does your Master pay taxes?" is preferred.

After Peter answers for His Master, Jesus proceeds to give Peter a legal and historical reminder of current fundamental tax law under Rome (which has not changed to this day). Peter is then further reminded that, while Jesus generally paid taxes, Jesus was not obligated by law to pay this particular tax.

If you are familiar with this story, you know that Jesus sent Peter to catch the fish, remove the gold coins from the mouth and pay the tax for both of them.

Certain Roman Tax Law has not changed!

It definitely makes for interesting discussion the fact that Jesus was not legally required to pay this tax, yet payed it anyway. Many might be tempted to conclude that Jesus caved in to Roman barbarism and any subsequent ill effects of resisting and rebelling against the powers that be. The Word of God, however, does not leave us to guess or draw educated conclusions. Jesus specifically tells us why he payed the tax he did not owe.

Jesus paid a tax he did not owe in order to protect the Tax Collector from proceeding against Him unlawfully and suffering the legal consequences of his actions. Once again the summary wrath of Rome could be brought to bear, for the life of the Tax Collector was subject to forfeiture if caught violating the terms of the license they operated under. Rome was not known for their tenderness when dealing with violations of its Law, especially from its own Officers.

For this reason, Jesus took the highest road possible. Knowing what the Law stated and required from Him personally, He was well within the boundaries of the Law. And yet, to protect the Publican from any potential mistake and violation in the exercise of his Official duties, Jesus paid a tax not required of Him!

Think about that! How many are willing to rise to that level of action in their lives? Who would be willing to act in such a way to protect any IRS agent? Yet, Jesus is our example to follow. How many are serious about it?

Jesus & Taxes - Was Jesus an IRS Tax Protestor?

I've seen the following picture on Facebook recently about Irwin Schiff, Taxes, the IRS and prison. I finally shared it with a preface statement and questions as follows.

"If you, like Irwin Schiff and others, were faced with a government that wanted you to pay taxes you weren't required by law to pay, what would your response be? Would it be the same as Irwin Schiff and others? Would it be the same as Jesus?"

Did irwin Schiff know Jesus' Tax law?

I wonder how many know what the response of Jesus was to the idea of paying a tax He wasn't legally liable to pay? Were you aware that Jesus faced this dilemma? Do you know the choice Jesus exercised? Can you guess?

I assure you that the option chosen by Jesus was not one most of us would have seriously considered, much less actually performed. I will make another post about His choice. In the meantime, see if you can figure it out.

Obama, Guns & The 2nd Amendment - Who are you Trusting?

In the wake of the Connecticut school shooting, the Obama Administration has proposed a return to a past ban on the sale of Assault style weapons, a limit on the capacity of magazines as well as a series of unprecedented regulations designed to limit gun violence and provide added safety to the population, especially children. In response, people and groups from various backgrounds have united to fight this political power grab and, hopefully, retain the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for protection from both criminals and government.

For Christians who have a stake in this matter, I wonder whose words take precedence in the final response to the proposed initiatives?

The following verses have much to say to the Child of God listening and watching the current wrangling over issues of safety and personal protection.

Deuteronomy 33:27A The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them .
Psalms 4:8 I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety.
Psalms 34:7 The angel of the LORD encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.
Psalms 46:1 God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.
Psalms 91:9, 10 Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation;
There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.
Psalms 127:1 Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.
Proverbs 3:26 For the LORD shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken.
Proverbs 14:26 In the fear of the LORD is strong confidence: and his children shall have a place of refuge.
Proverbs 18:10 The name of the LORD is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe.
Proverbs 21:31 The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD.
Proverbs 30:5B he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

The message is clear. Ultimately, God is the provider of safety, protection and deliverance for His People.
Does this mean that God's people are not to exercise self defense? Are they not allowed to own a weapon, even a gun?

Of course not, but in the quest and desire to have certain laws in place that allow us to exercise certain rights and privileges, have we discounted the rule of God over His Creation, especially those who have had the blood of Christ applied to their sins by faith? Has God been relegated to the status of a backup source of strength, wisdom and power in our lives? Absent the means to protect oneself, do we really think God is able to protect and deliver us?

I have a feeling that God is drawing a line in the sand across this country to find out who is on His side. And like God's people under the captivity of Babylon, we have a choice of who we will serve, even if He doesn't deliver us like Daniel and the Three Hebrew Children, even if the laws put into place are bad. We should make our choices now, rather than choosing God as a last resort because, as His Word reveals, He really is our safety, our Life, our Way, our Truth.

Texas Secession - Obama's Permission Required?

With Permission?

Texas bravado's most recent installation of bigger has turned out to be nothing more than the biggest political whimper since the surrender of Robert E. Lee. With the news of Obama's reelection, a petition to secede from the Union was almost immediately posted upon the White House Official Website that carries a promise to respond with a minimum of 25,000 signatures within a certain time. That time was easily met and the petition now stands at more than 110,000 signatures.

Here's the joke. The Petition, as detailed in this article from the Fort-Worth Star Telegram, asks the Federal Government to "peacefully grant" secession to the State of Texas! Can't you just hear the Texas Civil War Veterans howling from the grave? And this is supposed to be taken seriously? Asking permission to rebel?

I must admit to shaking my head about this. And the leaders of this movement are supposed to be taken seriously by their followers? If this is not a charade, then I don't know what is. And if others can't see through this half-hearted attempt to gain the attention of the Federal Government, as well as the World, then you deserve the disappointment and whatever else accompanies such a theatrical production as this.

ObamaCare & Hobby Lobby - Religious Rights or Legal Standing?

Obamacare Mandate has many in a Legal Uproar

With the highly publicized case of Hobby Lobby's fight against President Obama's Health Care mandate comes polarizing viewpoints, especially in the fight against Government oppression. Many are citing the American Revolution as a guide for the ultimate resolution of this dilemma; yes, physical violence is being ultimately advocated as the only measure for reasonable citizens against the tyranny of Obama and this direct attack upon religious liberties.

While many may engage in various amounts and types of debate over this issue, there is a fundamental issue that everyone needs to be aware of. It's a legal reality of established law that most have never thought of. It's the issue of status before the court and the rights of individuals before a court.

Many are screaming about fundamental rights being violated by government, in this case the rights of the owners of Hobby Lobby. It is presumed that Hobby Lobby is a duly formed Corporation. As such, all officers of a corporation have a different legal status than that of a natural person. A person acting as a corporate officer is not guaranteed the same rights as a natural person. Why? Well, let this portion of a well established case provide the reason.

 The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers.

 Hale v. Henkel - 201 U.S. 43 (1906)

 Do you think this tidbit of legal information might make a difference when asserting that Constitutional rights have been violated?

As Christians, we need to make sure that we understand certain issues before we proceed blindly and end up suffering as evildoers, rather than as Christians for true righteousness.

Post Election Questions - Christians, Politics & God's Will

 By Ryan Bush

Christian resolve is, generally speaking, quite low at the moment. 

So let's recall the recent unpleasantness that has saddened and confused the hearts and minds of millions of believers throughout the entire world and inject a sense of purpose back into the arena of Christian life. As born-again believers in Christ, we all know there's no real sense in running from our problems, right? And there's even less sense in letting a cloud of uncertainty fester and poison your outlook and weaken your faith.
  

With that said, let's get right to it. Barack Obama over Mitt Romney for the American Presidency: It's been on the lips of nearly every cognitive Christian for 36 hours running, and from it has sprung forth a well of deep-rooted emotion, ranging from frustration, to disbelief, to shock and to anger. And along with this, has surfaced a theme of what many on the outside looking in might consider to be supernatural occurrence. Yes, Christian America has spent the last day-and-a-half apologizing for "being so wrong" about the 2012 election. No, it wasn't Romney, but rather Obama.

For the onlooking secular crowd and the many young believers caught in the middle, these outpouring apologies from members of a religious sect that is widely viewed as a "dogmatic and thoroughly proud people" may overwhelm them with their humbleness and honesty. A Christian apologizing? A Christian admitting he was wrong? Can it be true?

Yes, it certainly is true, but as ambassadors of the risen Christ who rules at this moment from his heavenly throne, we need to address much more than just the shocking outcome on Tuesday. For a testimony to the world, as well as for the good of ourselves.

Whether you are a believer or not, please read and consider: What message does it send to the world when our prayers for the election of Mitt Romney, that we loudly prophesied to be according to Faith, ultimately wind up all for naught? What are they supposed to think after being told that Mitt Romney was "God's choice for President" that a re-elected Obama is actually "part of God's Plan?"

What happened to Romney in His plan? What happened to the saving grace that the Lord was about to bestow upon this nation that hundreds, if not thousands, of this nation's spiritual leaders promised us so confidently?

And how, after saying for so long that there was no way that a Christian could vote for Obama and all of his ultra-liberal views, can you reconcile that with the latest conclusion that God was in Obama's corner the entire way? Are you suggesting that God condones mass abortion, and a homosexual lifestyle and a communist governmental system that taxes the leather off of everyone's wallet? First God was a Being that never condones evil, now He's supposed to be all for it? Does this make God out to be a liar? Wasn't God supposed to stand with the lesser (that being Romney) of the two obviously liberal candidates? Does this mean that God is a liberal Himself?

And what of Romney's political campaign that so many Christians supported in a variety of different ways, and went on Christian talk-radio to promote Romney's cause, all in the name of Jesus? What of all the Scripture that was recited to sway voters with? Could all, or some, or the majority, of these passages from God's Word, be relegated to the status of misapplied truths in this instance, and pose as nothing more than outright lies? Have the spiritual leaders in America actually helped the throngs to live outside of the will of God, rather than directly in it?

And what is God's will in all of this, anyway? What is this "Plan" everyone keeps referring to, as if it's some exclusive club-members-only secret? A couple days ago, He was supposedly giving back America to the Christians, now some are being led to believe that we are in "exile", much like the Israelites were in the book of Jeremiah. Which one is true, if any?..............

You see, there's more here than just a little "oh, I was so wrong" moment can reconcile. You can't just shake your head and walk on, assuring everyone watching that "God's in control. This is all just a part of His plan." This isn't the time to save face. There has been damage done. There have been promises made, that have gone unfulfilled. There have been promises believed, that will never be realized. In retrospect, there have been lies spoken, and lies believed by a whole host of people that claimed to be walking hand-in-hand with the Lord. It doesn't take much of an examination to discover that such was hardly the case at all.

Yes, this election has been another disaster for the Christian world at-large. They not only have misrepresented the God of heaven and earth, but have helped make the very idea of their actually being a Supreme Being a joke to so many unbelievers watching from a distance. We have left some of them in a state of confusion, rather than conviction and faith.

The psalmist said "Teach me your way, oh Lord, that I may walk in your truths. Give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name."

Christians need to allow the Lord to teach them His way, and the only way is to go back to the Bible where all His Truth is written down. John 1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

They need to seek the wisdom and understanding for discernment, rather than simply accepting whatever is offered to us. I John 4 offers an explicit warning to all believers: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

Who can argue with that last verse? The evidence for it is all around us. As is the Truth and wisdom of God Himself.

And if God's Truth doesn't provide a sense of purpose and direction and protection and joy within your heart, nothing on this earth ever will.

The National Prayer Breakfast - Did God Speak Through President Obama?

Well, President Obama's done it again. He has Christians of many stripes in an uproar because of his callous and potentially unpardonable sin; he quoted Jesus as support for his idea of taxing the rich.

I must admit, if you're going to the National Prayer breakfast as a politician, Jesus is One you might want to associate yourself with, especially when it comes to advocating a policy not highly regarded among most of the Evangelical audience. But, needless to say, this action wasn't warmly received. In fact, as I said, most are outraged and expressing their shock, disdain and offense at such highly insensitive and proud remarks.

I must wonder though, if the denunciation of President Obama's use of the Bible (The King James Version at that!) to give credence to the plan to increases taxes on the rich in American Society is being thoroughly examined by anyone? All I hear so far is the bemoaning of poor Bible exegesis by the President and castigating him for his audacious actions of teaching the National Prayer Breakfast multitudes using the very Words of God in the flesh for his proof text.

A Little Reality is in order.

The most common argument against Obama's use of Jesus' words is the misapplication of them by the President. It is being said that in Luke chapter 12 Jesus was talking about personal responsibility before God and God alone for the use of resources acquired by someone. The idea that this could apply to a relationship involving Government and a taxpayer was not considered and should not be considered at all. This is simply between God and and an individual.

For the Believer in Christ serious about "rightly dividing the word of truth," it is easy to overcome this objection. It must be remembered that Jesus in no way eliminated an individual's relationship with "Caesar." The phrase "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is one of the most well known comments of Jesus especially when considering the duties and responsibilities of Believers in Christ toward secular government. Surely, those raising the cry against President Obama at The National Prayer Breakfast are not going to deny Caesar, in this case, The US Government, the right to ask the individual to pay legitimate taxes, are they? Putting the issue of what is "legitimate" or not aside, the issue of paying lawfully due taxes to Caesar should not be of concern in this instance. If it is, then a whole new series of issues arise outside the scope of this discussion.

So, assuming that the issue of paying lawful taxes to Caesar is not at issue, we are left with nothing more than disagreeing with President Obama about the limited set of Scripture cited by him in his statements about taxing the rich and the rate of taxation to be levied by the Obama Administration on the "rich." We are left with nothing more than rank secular politics.

The Real Core Issue

What we are left with is the fundamental difference that many professing Christians in the United States have with the policies and beliefs of President Obama. As stark as these may be, they, in no way, detract from the true duties and responsibilities these same professing Christians have toward the Obama Administration as outlined in the same Book cited by the President:

1. They are to honor this administration.
2. They are not to "rail" against this administration with their words and actions.
3. They are to submit to this administration short of disobeying a direct command of Jesus.
4. They are to pray for the salvation of the Obama administration.
5. They are to acknowledge that the Obama administration is "ordained by God" to be in power at this time in history.
6. They are to acknowledge that the Obama administration is ordained by God to reward good and evil.
7. They are to acknowledge that the Obama Administration are the "deacons" of God to oversee good and evil.

Assuming that these defined duties are being responsibly exercised, should it concern professing Christians that "bad" laws are being passed in this country that negatively impact its citizens? Everyone will agree that "yes" it should concern us a Christians!. But is that all that we should ask? I say that it isn't. How about one more question?

WHY???????

Most concerned with the issue of bad laws will usually resort to the safe haven of faulty ideology on the part of the Obama Administration. While simplistic as best, it does not reach to the root of the problem for God's people. Fortunately, we are not left to our own understanding. Jesus and His Prophets have previously spoken. We would do well to listen.

Jesus says in Matthew 5:17 that He didn't come to destroy the Law, He came to fulfill it. Two verses later, He also states that the person that breaks the least of His commandments and teaches men so, is the least in the Kingdom of heaven; that whoever does them and teaches them is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.

The Prophet Ezekiel had a few things to say on behalf of God to the Israelites regarding the Law. The 20th chapter of Ezekiel tells how God had given them Laws, Statutes and Judgments to live their lives by. But they rejected these and turned elsewhere. Because of this rejection of God's Laws, Statutes and judgments in their lives, God says that he gave them "statutes that were no good and judgments whereby they should not live."

The reason for God doing this was simple, "to make them desolate that they might know that I am the LORD."

American Spiritual heritage is full of professed Believers in Christ denying the validity of Gods Law over us in our lives. The reason given is that "we are not under the law." Galatians reveals that he that is under the law is under the curse of the Law. However, a little Bible exegesis reveals that what we are no longer under, what we have been redeemed from is not the law, but the "curse" of the Law. Paul tells us further that the Law is holy and spiritual. He finally tells us that by faith, the Law is established. But, alas, Believers by the droves have officially rejected the validity of their duty to conform their lives to God's Law. And we wonder why our lives in America are steadily looking toward the bleak side while we point the finger currently at the Obama Administration.

Is it possible that the actions of an administration so poorly thought of by many Americans are, in truth, in line with the God of the Bible we supposedly so diligently follow? Is it possible that the further taxing of the rich is an indication that we are under the judgment of God. Is it possible that the scourge of Abortion is another indicator?

Please understand me. I'm not saying that all these bad laws and their outworking are leading to God's Judgment. God's Word says that the bad laws ARE the Judgement of God. Obama is simply speaking and carrying out God's oversight of the universal principle of sowing and reaping. Christians living in America have sown the rejection of God's Law. We are now reaping the inevitable result, bad laws of men.

Is it any wonder that we don't like them? A holy and righteous God awaits our repentance.

Curfews & The Role of American Parents

The issue of curfews for children occasionally resurfaces in various locations in the United States. This time the State is California. As reported on One News Now, The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors will review a proposed daytime curfew for children under the age of 18.

These laws, when proposed, usually create a firestorm of negative response from parents and parental organizations, especially among those homeschooling their children. The reason is rather obvious from a parental viewpoint. A daytime curfew would "restrict the constitutional rights of minors and instead encourage officers to selectively detain the youngsters."

Surprisingly, Finn Larsen of Christian Educators Association International says that parents are partly to blame for the problem. ""It is unfortunate that many parents, for whatever reason, are not providing good oversight and care for their children," he laments. "So what this does is it allows the state, if you will -- the police, the government -- to have a little bit more exercise of authority in a problem that, again, is growing.""

For those who may possess a little more curiosity than the normal resident, it may be interesting to know how the State views its citizens. Does it strike you as hypocritical that any State of the Union would attempt to impose itself within the family sphere in order to alleviate a problem, especially when that problem stems from a lack of parental oversight?

The answer is very simple. It is also written into law. The fact is that the State claims ownership of its citizens through the legal doctrine known as Parens Patriae, the State is the Parent of the Nation. So, when the property of the State, in this case the parents, aren't performing their civic duty, the State has the right, nay, the duty, to step in and correct the problem. The state is simply taking care of what is legally theirs. And, ultimately, the State's property will not and cannot determine what the State will do.

If you think that this is un-American and Unconstitutional, save your breath. This concept is as old as civilization and was present in the American Revolution. Benjamin Rush, a Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Founding Father extraordinaire, had this to say about children. "We must teach our pupils that they do not belong to themselves, but are public property."

Do you remember hearing that in history class? I didn't think so! Think about it.

Thomas Jefferson, Sigmund Freud & the Independence Slip

As this article and video confirm, it seems that revered Founding Father and penman of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, unconsciously scribed a word that was directly contrary to all principles of the freedom they were about to initiate. Modern technology allows us to view the original use of the word "subjects," which was wiped out then replaced by the word "citizens."

Some might say, like Sigmund Freud, that Jefferson's use of the word "subjects" was a sign of Jefferson's innate acknowledgement of their true legal position before the King of England. The fact that he had to correct the document shows that such latent truth, when having been lived out and acknowledged in so many ways in your life, is hard to abandon.

Furthermore, such a change is also a reminder that words and their meanings matter significantly. How many realize the legal importance held by the two words? Any competent Attorney or Judge will tell you that the Declaration was first and foremost a legal document. The words and concepts used in it and the Constitution have been resorted to innumerable times to articulate and clarify the law. And it still serves that purpose today.

So, the definition of the words from a relevant dictionary of the times and compiled by one who was intimately familiar with the founding era, its Leaders and their writings is in order. Noah Webster and his original 1828 edition will speak for us.

Citizen, n. 5. In the U. States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.

Subject, n. 1. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws........The natives of the United States, and naturalized foreigners, are subjects of the Federal government. Men in free governments, are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens, they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws.

Sovereign, n. A supreme lord or ruler; one who possesses the highest the highest authority without control.

One who honestly looks at the above words should come away with the realization that the Revolution did nothing more than substitute one sovereign for another. Instead of owing allegiance to a single personality, we are instead subjected to a system administered by a plethora of fellow citizens.

There's a Supreme Court case which spells out the conversion of status which took place with the gaining of independence. The sovereignty of the King passed to the citizens of the United States. So each man became a sovereign, an individual king in his own right. So when a fellow citizen is elected to office, the remaining citizenry is actually ruled by a multi-headed King or Sovereign called government. The citizen, though having privileges and franchises granted to him, is still a subject. He is still subject to certain powers above him.

The Consititution bears this out in Amendments which refer to United States citizens being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." If you think that these references are terms of freedom, please think again. they are informing you that a particular status brings with it a commensurate subjection to the all powerful Sovereign government.

This idea finds lawful fulfilment in the doctrine of parens patriae. This doctrine simply means that the State is the Parent of the Nation. By Law, the government owns everything and everyone. You are the child who canot care for themself and the State is the one who can determine everything for you. Those who get crossways with official public policy will find themselves mercilessly subjected to this doctrine as the State asserts its will regarding its property and the official disposal and use of it.

So, remember the typo of Jefferson, then remember Freud. Maybe Sig got something right after all!

Enjoy your independence!

Post Jesus Culture - The Political Sky Is Falling!

Welcome to the World of Post Christian America, where everything you hold dear as a Christian, including God and Country, is under attack. And the more that is perceived as lost to them, the more Christians dig in their bunkers and prepare for the warfare to come. After all, much damage has been done by the enemy, mainly Democrats, therefore, there's much ground to recover. And it begins with this year's mid term elections, because the Leader of the Enemey, Barak Obama, has stumbled and apparently rendered his troops vulnerable.

So, what's at stake in this broohaha? Oh not much. Just the Legal foundation of the entire Country. After all, how can Christians expect to conduct themselves properly if they don't have guidelines, ie laws? And with so many fundamental laws being overturned or modified and others facing attacks from various sides, the Christian lifestyle of Believers in Jesus is severely threatened.

You remember Jesus. He's one of the Founders.....wrote the declaration, signed it over fifty times, wrote the Constitution and got it passed by enough states. And in the middle of all that he fought the Revolution singlehanded. Don't believe me? Ask Washington? Who do you think really got them safely through the winter at Valley Forge? And do you think he would go to all that trouble just to have the Congress and Judiciary pass just any laws? No Sireee! They passed His Laws! Right outa the Good Book!

Don't remember? First of all, The Defense of Marrige Act, Prohibition, repeal of Prohibition, Outcome Based Education, Founding era Slavery, abolition of Slavery, Bankruptcy laws, Abortion, Churches tax exemptions and last, but not least, the tens of thousands of rules, regulations and laws regarding the IRS. Yes, Jesus did it all!

And now they're tearing down this culture of Christ. And Christians are screaming because, for some reason, they can't seem to fathom life without all these American constructs. This just can't happen to American Christianity. So this American Jesus and his American lifestyle and values has got to be preserved and promoted.

Of course, there is an alternative. They could turn to the Jesus of the Bible and his laws about how to live among all cultures in this world. Having been tortured and murdered unjustly, I don't think any of us are going to lecture him on the proper response to unkind treatment. Then again, seeing that His purpose for coming into this world was to face this treatment on behalf of the human race, I don't think suffering on behalf of Jesus has many advocates or volunteers. No, this type of political activism requires a dedication of a different sort. It must be remembered, too, that the law undergirding this type of action is of a different sort. Therein lies the crux.

Whose law do we serve? The law of Man or the Law of a Holy God? Each set of laws manifests itself in a distinct culture. And by the way, those cultures are always at odds with one another, no exceptions.